In 2004, I supported George W. Bush for a second term as president because I believed the most important issue facing the United States was the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, a life or death issue.

Even though I did not agree with President Bush on a single domestic issue, I nevertheless supported him because I believed the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, took positions that were not adequate for the struggle ahead.

Moreover, I believed the Democratic Party was not up to the responsibility to protect America and its allies from those in al Qaeda and the Taliban who had made clear they were committed to murdering every Christian, Jew and Hindu who refused to convert to Islam or pay tribute. I have no regrets in having taken that position.

When the choices for president were presented in 2008, the candidates being Barack Obama and John McCain, I chose to support Obama, who called me on the phone to say that if I had any questions on his positions on different issues, he was ready to answer them. I told him he did not have to worry about me and the decision I would be announcing. He immediately asked if I would go to Florida and campaign for him in the large Jewish community in that state. I said I would and I did. I also campaigned for him in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

(More than 75 percent American Jews ended up voting for Obama. The magnitude of his Jewish support had nothing to do with me. The Jewish community is overwhelmingly liberal and most Jews could not abide the thought of domestic issues being ill-served by another Republican administration. I discovered when I went to Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey that those Jewish communities had already made up their mind and needed no sales pitch from me.)

Charles Krauthammer began a recent column (“War? What War?”) with a knockout punch, quoting Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano saying “the system worked” when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian Muslim terrorist, was apparently used by al Qaeda in an attempt to bring down an American airliner with 288 people on board.

I won’t cite all the facts as to why the system in fact did not work and how lucky we were that a Dutch passenger tackled and restrained the terrorist. (Why haven’t we honored that brave civilian? And why haven’t we publicly shown appreciation to the two police officers who risked their lives to take down the Fort Hood Muslim terrorist before he could kill and maim others?)

Krauthammer made a telling point when he wrote: “The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration’s response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism ‘man-caused disasters.’ Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close. CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York – a trifecta of political correctness and image management.”

Krauthammer went on to point out that the president has made a point of banishing the phrase “war on terror.” The president’s initial statements following the act of terrorism over Detroit were tepid, referring, as Krauthammer notes, to Abdulmutallab as “an isolated extremist.” On the third day, apparently recognizing the inadequacy of his earlier comments, he referred to the incident as potentially “catastrophic,” and the lack of adequate security measures as “systemic.”

In my opinion, after the president finally recognized the gravity of the situation he should have flown home from his vacation in Hawaii.

Krauthammer ended his column with another knockout punch, writing, “Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy – jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon – turns laxity into a governing philosophy.”

Mr. President, I hope you read the Krauthammer column. It is not too late for you to recover from the setbacks you suffered in the year just ended. Your commitment to battling Islamic terrorism led by al Qaeda, which has a presence in an estimated 62 countries, must be believably reaffirmed, with both words and deeds.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

One Response to “This Is War, Mr. President”

when are you all going to realize he loves Islam, he wants the arab spring, do you really think he doesn’t want Morsi and the brotherhood to take over Egypt? He’s helping Hamas in Gaza. He wanted Islamists to take over Libya, now Syria…he is NOT your ‘friend’. He is not a true representative of the ‘old’ democratic party. It doesn’t exist anymore. He, and Hillary (who has the brotherhood whispering in her ear via Huma), Jarrett (an Iranian), Rice (who helped Islamists in Africa) – ALL of them support Islam. And we all know what Islam wants (and we also know who they want to erase off the face of the earth). WAKE UP!!! you’re right – THIS IS WAR!

In his April 4th New York Times column, Thomas Friedman endorsed what he designated to be “non-violent resistance by Palestinians” against Israel. He added that Palestinians need to “accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a detailed map” delineating their territorial demands.

Equating terrorism with criminality is ridiculous. They have no relationship to one another. Criminality is generally for the purpose of enrichment of oneself by breaking the law. Modern day terrorism seeks to achieve political or military goals by the use of indiscriminate terror directed primarily at innocent civilians.

As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated her harsh and unfair critics.

After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.

In 2004, I supported George W. Bush for a second term as president because I believed the most important issue facing the United States was the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, a life or death issue.

We are now getting down to the homestretch as we wrap up the Democratic primary and begin the race to the November general election. We will be electing the next president of the United States, and almost everyone expressing an opinion, informed or uninformed, believes the Democratic candidate will be Barack Obama.